Crmpro Midterms Exam Mod 12

CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA

MODULE 12 ● Even if the court where the complaint or information is filed may
Prosecution of Offenses only proceed to investigate the case, its actuation already
Criminal Action, how instituted represents the initial step of the proceedings against the offender.
Prescriptive Period of Crimes, Interruption ● It is unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to obtain
1. PEOPLE VS GALANO vindication on account of delays that are not under his control.
I: Whether or not the offense of estafa for which respondent accused
stands charged clearly has not prescribed - YES Notes: Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period
Whether or not Respondent judge gravely erred in dismissing the of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the
information on the ground of prescription and disregarding the controlling discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or by their agents, and
case of People vs. Olarte. - YES shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information and
R: The responded judge gravely erred in sustaining the ground of shall commence to run again when the proceedings terminate without the
prescription ruling that there was no interruption of the prescriptive period accused being convicted or acquitted or are unjustifiably stopped for any
during the pendency of the case in the Batangas on the ground that the reason not imputable to him.
court has no territorial jurisdiction of the offense charge. The court ruled
that clearly the Batangas court was vested with lawful jurisdiction over the 2. SANRIO CO VS LIM
criminal complaint filed and that the proceedings therein were valid and I: Whether or not the action has been prescribed - No
before a competent court (including the arrest warrant, grant, forfeiture and R: The filing of the complaint tolled the prescriptive period. Sec(on 2 of Act
jumping of bail). It follows just as clearly that the prescriptive period was 3326 provides that the prescriptive period for violation of special laws
interrupted and tolled during the 12-year pendency of the proceedings starts on the day such offense was committed and is interrupted by the
before the Batangas Court (for nine years of which respondent accused institution of proceedings against the respondent (i.e., the accused).
had jumped bail and evaded re-arrest). Petioner in this instance filed its complaint-affidavit on April 4, 2002, or one
● In the second People vs. Olarte case, the Court clarified precisely year, ten months, and four days after the NBI searched respondent's
that the true doctrine is that the filing of the complaint in the premises and seized Sanrio merchandise therefrom. Although no
municipal court, even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary information was immediately filed in court, the respondent's alleged
investigation should and does interrupt the period of prescription violation had not yet prescribed.
of the criminal liability even if the court where the complaint or ● Respondent is liable for copyright infringement (even if he
information is filed cannot try the case on its merits. Ratio of the obtained his merchandise from legitimate sources) because he
Olarte ruling: Art 91 of the RPC provides that the period of sold counterfeit goods
prescription “shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint
or information” xxx xxx xxx without distinguishing whether the
complaint is filed in the court for preliminary examination or
investigation merely, or for action on the merits
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
3. REPUBLIC VS COJUANGCO (AAOI), which reflected the increase in Unicoms capitalization, as
I: The primary issue in this case with respect to respondent Eduardo M. well as the conversion and classification of its shares.
Cojuangco is on the question of whether the right of the State to prosecute
the respondents for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. (RA) The time the prescriptive period was interrupted
3019[1] or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has prescribed. ● Notably, the second paragraph of Section 2, Act No. 3326 is silent
Corollary to this issue are the questions - on the effect of the offenders absence from the country on the
a. when the prescriptive period provided by law should begin to running of the prescriptive period. The law simply states that Sec.
run; and 2. x x x The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings
b.whether the prescriptive period should be tolled or interrupted are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run
when the offender is outside the country’s jurisdiction again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting
R: The period of prescription for the offense charged jeopardy.
Prior to its amendment by Batas Pambansa Bilang 195 in 1982 and insofar ● The silence of the law, however, does not preclude the suppletory
as it applies to the facts of this case, Section 11 of RA 3019 provided for a application of Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Article
10-year prescriptive period for all offenses punishable under it.[3] Any 91 of the RPC provides that [t]he term of prescription shall not run
criminal proceeding for violation of RA 3019, initiated after the 10-year when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago. The
period, is barred and the State forfeits its power to prosecute and penalize suppletory application of Article 91 of the RPC is authorized and
the offender. even mandated under Article 10 of the same Code, which states:
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code.
The time the period of prescription starts to run Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under
● Since RA 3019 is a special penal law, the applicable law for the special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This
computation of the prescriptive period is Section 2, Act No. Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter
3326:[4] Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the should specifically provide the contrary. The combined application
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not of these provisions, therefore, dictates that the 10-year period to
known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of file charges for violation of RA 3019 should not run when the
judicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment. offender was absent from the Philippines.
● The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are ● Accordingly, the charge insofar as it involves respondent Eduardo
instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if M. Cojuangco, Jr. was filed within the prescriptive period. He was
the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting absent from the country from 1986 to 1991. Hence, the filing of the
jeopardy. [emphasis supplied]. charge on March 1, 1990 was well within the 10-year prescriptive
● The ponencia considers February 8, 1980 as the point when the period, even assuming it began to run on February 8, 1980.
10-year prescriptive period began to run, as it was at this time that
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued to Unicom
the Certificate of Filing of the Amended Articles of Incorporation
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
4. ZALDIVA VS REYES JR. ● Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure does not prevent
I: Prescriptive period rule for Ordinances the prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if he
R: Act No. 3326, as amended, entitled "An Act to Establish Periods of wants to but the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted
Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal on the date the case is actually filed in court
Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to Run," ● Conflict between: Rule on Summary Procedure (special law) >
reading as follows: Section 1 of Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise ● Act No. 3326 > Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: x x ● Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive right and according
x Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two to Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution in the exercise of its
months. rule-making power, not allowed to "diminish, increase or modify
Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission substantive rights.
of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from
the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment.
● The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are
instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run
again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
constituting jeopardy.
● The prosecution invokes Section 1, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure where the phrase phrase "in all cases" applies
to all cases, without distinction, including those falling under the
Rule on Summary Procedure which is according to the dictum in
Francisco v. CA promulgated on May 30, 1983. (the promulgation
of Rules on Summary Procedure is on Aug 1, 1983 while the
revisionof Criminal Procedure was on Oct 1, 1988)
● Applying the canon that words statute should be read in relation to
and not isolation from the rest of the measure, to discover the true
legislative intent, the phrase "in all cases" appearing in the last
paragraph obviously refers to those offenses not governed by the
Rule on Summary Procedure
● Referenced to Section 32(2) of B.P. No. 129 vesting to the
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts offenses
not covered under Rules on Summary Procedure
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
Who May file them, crimes that cannot be prosecuted de oficio non-availability of other direct or corroborative evidence,
1. AMPATUAN VS DE LIMA which of the accused is the ‘most guilty’ one, an the like.
I: Whether or not the Secretary of Justice can be compelled by writ ● On the other hand, there is no requirement under RA
of mandamus to charge Dalandag as a co-accused in the 6981 for the Prosecution to first charge a person in court
Maguindanao massacre despite his admission as state witness. as one of the accused in order for him to qualify for
–NO admission into the Witness Protection Program. The
R: Dalandag’s exclusion as an accused from the informations did admission as a state witness under RA 6981 also
not at all amount to grave abuse of discretion on the part of the operates as an acquittal, and the said witness cannot
panel of prosecutors whose procedure in excluding Dalandag as subsequently be included in the criminal information
an accused was far from arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or except when he fails or refuses to testify. The immunity for
despotic. Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which requires the state witness is granted by the DOJ, not by the trial
that “the complaint or information shall be xxx against all persons court. Should such witness be meanwhile charged in court
who appear to be responsible for the offense involved,” albeit a as an accused, the public prosecutor, upon presentation
mandatory provision, may be subject of some exceptions, one of to him of the certification of admission into the Witness
which is when a participant in the commission of a crime becomes Protection Program, shall petition the trial court for the
a state witness. discharge of the witness. The Court shall then order the
● While it is true that, as a general rule, the discharge or discharge and exclusion of said accused from the
exclusion of a co-accused from the information in order information.
that he may be utilized as a Prosecution witness rests
upon the sound discretion of the trial court, such discretion 2. AAA VS BBB
is not absolute and may not be exercised arbitrarily but I: Whether or not the Court should entertain the petition of AAA without the
with due regard to the proper administration of justice. representation of the Office of the Solicitor General.
Anent the requisite that there must be an absolute R: In the interest of substantial justice, the Court proceeded to entertain
necessity for the testimony of the accused whose the Petition filed by AAA.
discharge is sought, the trial court has to rely on the In AAA’s motion for extension of time, it was mentioned that she was
suggestions of and the information provided by the public awaiting the OSG’s response to her Letter requesting for representation.
prosecutor. The reason is obvious – the public prosector Since, the OSG was unresponsive to her plea for assistance in filing the
should know better than the trial court, and the Defense intended petition, AAA filed the present petition in her own name before
for that matter, which of the several accused would best the lapse of the extension given her by this Court.
qualify to be discharged in order to become a state Under the circumstances, the ends of substantial justice will be better
witness. The public prosecutor is also supposed to know served by entertaining the petition if only to resolve the question of law
the evidence in his possession and whomever he needs lodged before this Court. In Morillo v. People of the Philippines, et al.,
to establish his case, as well as the availability or (2015) where the Court entertained a Rule 45 petition which raised only a
question of law filed by the private offended party in the absence of the
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
OSG’s participation, we recalled the instances when the Court permitted jurisdiction to try the case. Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to
an offended party to file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG. the offended spouse to institute the action, it necessarily follows that such
One such instance is when the interest of substantial justice so requires. initiator must have the status, capacity or legal representation to do so at
the time of the filing of the criminal action. This is a familiar and express
rule in civil actions; in fact, lack of legal capacity to sue, as a ground for a
3. PEOPLE VS MARIANO motion to dismiss in civil cases, is determined as of the filing of the
I: WON the mother can file the action for rape. -YES complaint or petition. In the present case, the fact that private respondent
R: While we agree with the appellant's contention that the trial court does obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany,
not acquire jurisdiction if the complaint charging an accused with any of is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the
the aforesaid private crimes is not filed by one of the persons indicated in Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned in view of the
said section there is nothing in the context thereof to support the view that nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status of persons.
the mother cannot present the complaint if the father is still living In People Private respondent, being no longer the husband of petitioner, had no legal
vs. Dela Cruz 4, this Court resolved the same legal question in this wise: standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was
Appellant's contention is . . . based on a dubious technicality. If sustained, the offended spouse at the time he filed suit. Therefore, the case was
it might defeat the ends of justice. It is not sanctioned by section 4 of Rule dismissed.
110 nor by article 344 of the Revised Penal Code whose provisions do not
categorically specify that the father has the preferential right to file the 5. CABRAL VS BRACAMONTE
complaint for seduction, abduction, rape or abusos deshonestos It is I: Whether Cabral, a private complainant in a criminal case has the
noteworthy that 'the father and mother jointly exercise parental authority authority to file appeal in CA and SC?
over their legitimate children who are not emancipated'. It is their duty to a. Who has the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal
represent their emancipated children 'in all actions which may redound to cases before the Supreme Court and the CA? Are there any exceptions?
their benefit' [Arts. 311 and 316, Civil Code]. " R: In criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the
case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on
4. PILAPIL VS IBAY-SOMERA behalf of the State.
I: Whether or not the case for adultery will prosper. ● Here, Cabral filed the present petition without the participation of
R: No. Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Section 35(1), Chapter
as well as four other crimes against chastity, cannot be prosecuted except 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code explicitly
upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse. It has long provides that the OSG shall represent the Government of the
since been established, with unwavering consistency, that compliance with Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and
this rule is a jurisdictional, and not merely a formal, requirement. While in agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter
point of strict law the jurisdiction of the court over the offense is vested in it requiring the services of lawyers. It shall have specific powers and
by the Judiciary Law, the requirement for a sworn written complaint is just functions to represent the Government and its officers in the
as jurisdictional a mandate since it is that complaint which starts the Supreme Court and the CA, and all other courts or tribunals in all
prosecutory proceeding and without which the court cannot exercise its civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party. The OSG is the
law office of the Government.
● Thus, in criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the
dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the
Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. The private
complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or
dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is
concerned [Chiok v. People, 774 Phil. 230, 245, (2015)].
● The rationale behind is that, the party affected by the dismissal of
the criminal action is the State and not the private complainant.
The interest of the private complainant or the private offended
party is limited only to the civil liability. In the prosecution of the
offense, the complainant’s role is limited to that of a witness for the
prosecution.
● There have been instances, however, where the Court permitted
an offended party to file an appeal without the intervention of the
OSG, such as when the offended party questions the civil aspect
of a decision of a lower court, when there is denial of due process
of law to the prosecution and the State or its agents refuse to act
on the case to the prejudice of the State and the private offended
party, when there is grave error committed by the judge, or when
the interest of substantial justice so requires [Morillo v. People, et
al., 775 Phil. 192, 210-211 (2015)].
● In the instant case, however, the petition before the Court
essentially assails the criminal, and not only the civil, aspect of the
CA Decision. Thus, the petition should have been filed only by the
State through the OSG and not by Cabral who lacked the
personality or legal standing to question the CA Decision.
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
Control of Prosecution directed the RTC to issue an order for the withdrawal of the Information for
1. CRESPO VS MOGUL estafa against respondent and Anne Kristine.
I: Whether the trial court may refuse to grant a motion to dismiss filed by I: Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that
the Fiscal under orders from, the Secretary of Justice and insist on the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
arraignment and trial on the merits. of jurisdiction;
R: It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either commenced by R: The general rule is that in the conduct of a preliminary investigation, the
complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and prosecutor is given a wide latitude of discretion to determine what
control of the fiscal. 17 The institution of a criminal action depends upon constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish probable cause. However,
the sound discretion of the fiscal. The reason for placing the criminal when the respondent establishes that the prosecutor committed grave
prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
malicious or unfounded prosecution by private persons. 19 It cannot be determining whether there is probable cause, the courts may interfere. In
controlled by the complainant. this case, the OCP found that no probable cause existed against
● However, the action of the fiscal or prosecutor is not without any respondent and Anne Kristine for the commission of the crime of estafa. In
limitation or control. The same is subject to the approval of the its Resolution, relying mainly on the case of United States v. Clarin, the
provincial or city fiscal or the chief state prosecutor as the case OCP found that there was a partnership agreement between the parties,
maybe and it maybe elevated for review to the Secretary of thus resolving that the failure of a partner to account for partnership funds
Justice who has the power to affirm, modify or reverse the action may only give rise to a civil obligation, not a criminal case for estafa.
or opinion of the fiscal. Consequently the Secretary of Justice may Furthermore, the RTC made its own independent assessment whether or
direct that a motion to dismiss the case be filed in Court or not probable cause exists that the crime was committed by respondent
otherwise, that an information be filed in Court. and Anne Kristine. "Independent assessment" does not mean mere
● The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal approval or disapproval of the prosecution's stand; it also means that the
action. The Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case, RTC must itself be convinced that indeed there is or there is no sufficient
which is the authority to hear and determine the case. The evidence against the accused. The question is not so much whether the
preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of RTC has the authority to grant or not to grant the OCP's Motion to
determining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the Withdraw Information, because it has such authority, but whether, in the
prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the exercise of that authority, the RTC acted justly and fairly. This Court finds
information in the proper court. that it did.
2. ORBE VS MIARAL 3. LAUDE VS GINEZ-JABALDE

The RTC issued an Order denying the Motion to Withdraw Information, I: 1. Whether the 3-day notice rule is justified?
and directing the arraignment of respondent and Anne Kristine. The 2. Whether the petitioner has legal capacity to sue in criminal case at bar?
Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied by the RTC. The Court of R: 1. No. The failure of petitioners to comply with the three-day notice rule
Appeals reversed and set aside the assailed Orders of the RTC. It further is unjustified. Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court clearly makes it a
mandatory rule that the adverse party be given notice of hearing on the
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
motion at least three days prior. Failure to comply with this notice 4. ALAWIYA VS CA
requirement renders the motion defective consistent with protecting the I: (1.) Whether the prior approval by the Office of the Ombudsman for the
adverse party's right to procedural due process. Military is required for the investigation and prosecution of the instant case
● In Jehan Shipping Corporation: As an integral component of against the accused;
procedural due process, the three-day notice required by the (2.) Whether the reversal by the Secretary of Justice of the resolution of
Rules is not intended for the benefit of the movant. Rather, the State Prosecutor Velasco amounted to an “executive acquittal;”
requirement is for the purpose of avoiding surprises that may be (3.) Whether the accused policemen can seek any relief (via a motion to
sprung upon the adverse party, who must be given time to study quash the information) from the trial court when they had not been
and meet the arguments in the motion before a resolution by the arrested yet; and
court. Principles of natural justice demand that the right of a party (4.) Whether there was probable cause against the accused for the crime
should not be affected without giving it an opportunity to be heard. of kidnapping for ransom.
R: On the prior approval by the Ombudsman for the investigation and
2. No. The conformity of the Public Prosecutor to the Urgent Motion to prosecution of the case against the accused policemen
Compel the Armed Forces of the Philippines to Surrender Custody of
Accused to the Olongapo City Jail is not a mere "superfluity."In Jimenez v. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which is representing the
Sorongon, this court held that in criminal cases, the People is the real Secretary of Justice, agrees with petitioners that prior approval by the
party in interest, which means allowing a private complainant to pursue a Ombudsman is not required for the investigation and prosecution of the
criminal action on his own is a rare exception Procedural law basically criminal case against the accused policemen. The OSG correctly cites the
mandates that "all criminal actions commenced by complaint or by case of Honasan II v. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the
information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public Department of Justice, where the Court held that the power of the
prosecutor." In appeals of criminal cases before the CA and before this Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers or employees
Court, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People. . The People is the is not exclusive but is concurrent with other similarly authorized agencies
real party in interest in a criminal case and only the OSG can represent the of the government such as the provincial, city and state prosecutors. In
People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. view of the foregoing, both the Court of Appeals and the Secretary of
● In the case at bar, petitioners have not shown why the Motion may Justice clearly erred in ruling that prior approval by the Ombudsman is
be allowed to fall under the exception. The alleged grave abuse of required for the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case against
discretion of the Public Prosecutor was neither clearly pleaded nor the accused policemen.
argued. The duty and authority to prosecute the criminal aspects
of this case, including the custody issue, are duly lodged in the On the reversal by the Secretary of Justice of the resolution of State
Public Prosecutor. Her refusal to give her conforme to the Motion Prosecutor
is an act well within the bounds of her position. That petitioners
used as bases newspaper articles for claiming that the Public Settled is the rule that the Secretary of Justice retains the power to review
Prosecutor acted contrary to the position of Secretary De Lima resolutions of his subordinates even after the information has already been
cannot be given weight. filed in court. In Marcelo v. Court of Appeals, reiterated in Roberts, Jr. v.
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
Court of Appeals, this Court clarified that nothing in Crespo v. Mogul application for bail. However, while the accused are not yet under the
forecloses the power or authority of the Secretary of Justice to review custody of the law, any question on the jurisdiction over the person of the
resolutions of his subordinates in criminal cases despite an information accused is deemed waived by the accused when he files any pleading
already having been filed in court. The nature of the power of control of the seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when the accused invokes
Secretary of Justice over prosecutors was explained in Ledesma v. Court the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his
of Appeals in this wise: person.
Decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the At any rate, the accused’s motion to quash, on the ground of lack of
Secretary of justice who, under the Revised Administrative Code, authority of the filing officer, would have never prospered because as
exercises the power of direct control and supervision over said discussed earlier, the Ombudsman’s power to investigate offenses
prosecutors; and who may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their involving public officers or employees is not exclusive but is concurrent
rulings. with other similarly authorized agencies of the government.
Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the Secretary of Justice’s reversal of On the existence or non-existence of probable cause
the Resolution of State Prosecutor did not amount to “executive acquittal”
because the Secretary of Justice was simply exercising his power to Ordinarily, the determination of probable cause is not lodged with this
review, which included the power to reverse the ruling of the State Court. Its duty in an appropriate case is confined to the issue of whether
Prosecutor. However, once a complaint or information is filed in court, any the executive or judicial determination, as the case may be, of probable
disposition of the case such as its dismissal or its continuation rests on the cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
sound discretion of the court. Trial judges are not bound by the Secretary discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction. However, in the following
of Justice’s reversal of the prosecutor’s resolution finding probable cause. exceptional cases, this Court may ultimately resolve the existence or
Trial judges are required to make their own assessment of the existence of non-existence of probable cause by examining the records of the
probable cause, separately and independently of the evaluation by the preliminary investigation.
Secretary of Justice.
● a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the
On the motion to quash the information when the accused had not been accused;
arrested yet ● b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to
avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
People v. Mapalao correctly argued by the OSG, does not squarely apply ● c. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
to the present case. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Rules governing a ● d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
motion to quash which requires that the accused should be under the authority;
custody of the law prior to the filing of a motion to quash on the ground ● e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
that the officer filing the information had no authority to do so. Custody of regulation;
the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs other than an ● f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
● g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine
● h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by
● i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the reason of such misapplication, any damages or embarrassment
lust for vengeance; shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the
● j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special
and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied; and disqualification.
● k. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to ● “The elements of the offense, also known as technical
prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners. malversation, are: (1) the offender is an accountable public officer;
(2) he applies public funds or property under his administration to
There is no clear showing that the present case falls under any of the some public use; and (3) the public use for which the public funds
recognized exceptions. Moreover, as stated earlier, once the information is or property were applied is different from the purpose for which
filed with the trial court, any disposition of the information rests on the they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance.” It is clear
sound discretion of the court. The trial court is mandated to independently that for technical malversation to exist, it is necessary that public
evaluate or assess the existence of probable cause and it may either funds or properties had been diverted to any public use other than
agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. that provided for by law or ordinance. To constitute the crime,
The trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of there must be a diversion of the funds from the purpose for which
Justice. Reliance alone on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice they had been originally appropriated by law or ordinance.
amounts to an abdication of the trial court’s duty and jurisdiction to Patently, the third element is not present in this case.
determine the existence of probable cause. ● In this case, the action taken by the Ombudsman cannot be
characterized as arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic.
5. TETANGCO VS OMBUDSMAN Here, the Complaint merely alleged that the disbursement for
I: Whether or not the Ombudsman commits grave abuse of discretion in financial assistance was neither authorized by law nor justified as
dismissing the Complaint? a lawful expense. Complainant did not cite any law or ordinance
R: The Ombudsman found no evidence to prove probable cause. Probable that provided for an original appropriation of the amount used for
cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by the financial assistance cited and that it was diverted from the
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious appropriation it was intended for.
man’s belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he
is charged.
● The Complaint charges Mayor Atienza with illegal use of public
funds. On this matter, Art. 220 of the Revised Penal Code
provides: “Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. – Any
public officer who shall apply any public fund or property under his
administration to any public use other than that for which such
fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
Sufficiency of Complaint or Information which both the CA and the RTC ruled to be attendant, has basic
1. PEOPLE VS ALBA constitutive elements.
● For treachery to be appreciated, therefore, two elements must be
alleged and proved, namely: (1) that the means of execution
employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or herself, or retaliate; and (2) that the means of execution
2. PEOPLE VS DASMARINAS were deliberately or consciously adopted,that is, the means,
I: Whether or not the accused is guilty of murder as stated in the methods or forms of execution must be shown to be deliberated
Information filed. upon or consciously adopted by the offender.
R: No, only homicide. ● The information herein did not make any factual averment on how
● We cannot sustain the finding of the CA that the killing was Dasmariñas had deliberately employed means, methods or forms
attended by treachery. The mere usage of the term treachery in in the execution of the act - setting forth such means, methods or
the information, without anything more, did not suffice for such forms in a manner that would enable a person of common
term was a conclusion of law, not a factual averment. The understanding to know what offense was intended to be charged -
sufficiency of the information is judged by the rule applicable at the that tended directly and specially to insure its execution without
time of its filing. risk to the accused arising from the defense that the victim might
● In this case, that rule is Section 9, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules on make. As earlier indicated, to merely state in the information that
Criminal Procedure which requires that the acts or omissions treachery was attendant is not enough because the usage of such
complained of as constituting the offense must be stated "in term is not a factual averment but a conclusion of law.
ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the Consequently, Dasmariñas could not be properly convicted of
language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a murder, but only of homicide, which is defined and penalized
person of common understanding to know what offense is being under Article 249, Revised Penal Code.
charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances."
The facts alleged in the body of the information, not the technical 3. QUIMVEL VS PEOPLE
name given by the prosecutor appearing in the title of the I: Whether the accused may be convicted only of acts of lasciviousness
information, determine the character of the crime. Dasmariñas under Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code and not in relation to Sec. 5(b)
was presumed innocent of wrongdoing, and thus was unaware of of RA 7610.
having committed anything wrong in relation to the accusation. R: Yes. Before an accused can be held criminally liable for lascivious
Hence, the information must sufficiently give him the knowledge of conduct under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610, the requisites of Acts of
what he had allegedly committed. Lasciviousness as penalized under Art. 336 of the RPC earlier
● The consequences are dire for the State if the standards of enumerated must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse
sufficiency defined by Section 9, supra, are not followed because under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610, which are as follows:
the accused should be found and declared guilty only of the crime 2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
properly and sufficiently charged in the information. Treachery, subjected to other sexual abuse
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
● The fault in petitioner's logic lies in his misapprehension of how provides that the offense can be committed by "any adult,
the element that the victim is "exploited in prostitution or subjected syndicate or group," without qualification. The clear language of
to other sexual abuse" should be alleged in the Information. the special law, therefore, does not preclude the prosecution of
● To the mind of the Court, the allegations are sufficient to classify lascivious conduct performed by the same person who subdued
the victim as one "exploited in prostitution or subject to other the child through coercion or influence. This is, in fact, the more
sexual abuse." This is anchored on the very definition of the common scenario of abuse that reaches this Court and it would be
phrase in Sec. 5 of RA 7610, which encompasses children who an embarrassment for us to rule that such instances are outside
indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, the ambit Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610.
profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group. 4. PEOPLE VS OANDASAN
● Correlatively, Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 punishes acts pertaining to or I: Whether or not plea of guilty should be appreciated in the case Whether
connected with child prostitution wherein the child is abused or not incomplete self-defense should be appreciated in the case
primarily for profit. On the other hand, paragraph (b) punishes R: The municipal court before which the accused pleaded not guilty was
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct committed on a child only conducting a preliminary investigation. It had no jurisdiction over the
subjected to other sexual abuse. It covers not only a situation crime of homicide; it could not have rendered judgment on the plea. The
where a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child, proper forum where a plea in mitigation may be presented is the court
through coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual which has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. By statute Article
intercourse or lascivious conduct. Hence, the law punishes not 13(7), a circumstance which mitigates penal liability is that the accused
only child prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse against "had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the
children. presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. Plea of guilt should be
● Clear from the records of the deliberation is that the original counted in his favor. They say that those facts also clearly demonstrate an
wording of Sec. 5 of RA 7610 has been expanded so as to cover act of unlawful aggression by the deceased as well as lack of sufficient
abuses that are not characterized by gain, monetary or otherwise. provocation on the part of the accused.
In the case at bar, the abuse suffered by AAA squarely falls under These two circumstances, they submit, carve out a good case of
this expanded scope as there was no allegation of consideration incomplete self-defense. The only element absent to exempt the accused
or profit in exchange for sexual favor. As stated in the Information, totally from criminal liability under Article 11(1) is "reasonable necessity of
petitioner committed lascivious conduct through the use of "force" the means employed to prevent or repel". The privileged mitigating
and "intimidation." circumstance of incomplete self-defense is here present. The standard set
● The Senate deliberations made clear, though, that other forms of down in the cases just discussed gives us the proper course to pursue: A
sexual abuse, not just prostitution, are within the extended two degree reduction of penalty — one degree, by Article 69, and another
coverage of RA 7610. It is immaterial whether or not the accused degree, by Article 64(5). The crime of homicide is penalized by Article 249
himself employed the coercion or influence to subdue the will of of the Revised Penal Code. Penalty is modified. He is sentenced to an
the child for the latter to submit to his sexual advances for him to indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to
be convicted under paragraph (b). Sec. 5 of RA 7610 even
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as (VOLUNTARY SURRENDER CANNOT BE USED AS MITIGATING
maximum, with the accessories of the law. CIRCUMSTANCE SINCE REYNALDO CAME TO THE POLCIE STATION
NOT TO GIVE HIMSELF UP BUT TO CLEAR HIMSELF OF
5. EVANGELISTA VS PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT TO THE CRIME AND ALSO SAME WITH THE
I: WON mitigating circumstances are admissible - NO IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE COMMITTED
R: AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE/S SINCE THE KILLING WAS NOT DONE WHILE THE DECEASED WAS
DEMOLISHING THE HOUSE OF EVANGELISTA’S MOTHER)
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF AN UNLICENSED FIREARM
Accused-appellant also cites certain circumstances as mitigating his
That an unlicensed firearm was used in the commission of murder or liability. He claims voluntary surrender. We do not think he can be credited
homicide is a qualifying circumstance. Consequently, it must be with the mitigating circumstance of having voluntarily surrendered to the
specifically alleged in the information, otherwise the accused cannot be authorities. In order that this circumstance may be appreciated, it must be
sentenced to death for illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form shown that the intention of the accused was to surrender unconditionally to
without violating his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the the authorities either because he acknowledged his guilt or because he
accusation against him. The information for the violation of P.D. No. 1866 wished to save them the trouble and expense in looking for him and
is bereft of any allegation that the unlicensed firearm mentioned in it was capturing him. In the case at bar accused-appellant's purpose in going to
used to commit murder. the Caloocan Police Station was not to give himself up but, according to
him, to clear himself of involvement in the killing because he was not
TREACHERY guilty. Nor may accused-appellant be credited with the mitigating
circumstance of having committed the crime in the immediate vindication
Accused-appellant questions the trial court's finding of treachery which of a grave offense committed against his mother because the victim had
qualified the killing as murder. But there is no question that the victim was demolished the house of accusedappellant's mother. The killing was not
shot while asleep. It was 12:00 midnight when he was killed. The victim's done while the victim was destroying the house of accused-appellant's
wife testified they were already asleep when she was awakened by the mother, which was at around 10:00 in the evening. In fact by 10:30
loud explosion. It has been held that there is treachery where the victim accused-appellant and his brother-in-law had already left, after throwing
was killed while he was asleep. stones at the victim and the latter's house. Art. 13(5) of the Revised Penal
Code requires that the act done be committed "in the immediate
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE/S vindication" of a grave offense committed against the accused or the
latter's relatives therein enumerated. As the Solicitor General points out, it
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
was no longer to vindicate the wrong done to him and his family but rather
to take revenge that accused-appellant killed the victim.favor of the
IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE COMMITTED
appellants.
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
RULING: MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED ARE NOT Revised Rules of Court that an information must charge only one
ADMISSIBLE. The trial court correctly found accused-appellant guilty of offense.
murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, there being neither ○ “Section 13. Duplicity of the offense. — A complaint or
aggravating nor mitigating circumstance present. However, the indemnity information must charge but one offense, except when the
fixed by it in the amount of P30,000.00 must be increased to P50,000.00 in law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.”
accordance with current rulings on this matter. ● The rationale behind this rule prohibiting duplicitous complaints or
information is to give the accused the necessary knowledge of
the charge against him and enable him to sufficiently prepare
for his defense. Non-compliance with this rule is a ground for
Duplicity of the Offense; exception quashing the duplicitous complaint or information under Rule 117
of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the accused may raise the
1. PEOPLE VS JAGUETA same in a motion to quash before he enters his plea, otherwise,
I: Whether or not the trial court and the CA violated the doctrine of the the defect is deemed waived.
duplicity of offense as provided for in Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of ● However, since appellant entered a plea of not guilty during
Court - YES arraignment and failed to move for the quashal of the informations,
R: The Court must make a clarification as to the nomenclature used by the he is deemed to have waived his right to question the same.
trial court to identify the crimes for which appellant was penalized. There is ● It is also well-settled that when two or more offenses are charged
some confusion caused by the trial court's use of the terms "Double in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object
Murder" and "Multiple Attempted Murder" in convicting appellant, and yet to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as
imposing penalties which nevertheless show that the trial court meant are charged and proved, and impose upon him the proper penalty
to penalize appellant for two (2) separate counts of Murder and four for each offense.
(4) counts of Attempted Murder. ● Appellant can therefore be held liable for all the crimes
alleged in the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 7698-G and
● The facts, as alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 7702-G, i.e., 2 counts of murder and 4 counts of attempted
7698-G, and as proven during trial, show that appellant is guilty of murder, respectively, and proven during trial.
2 counts of the crime of Murder and not Double Murder, as the
killing of the victims was not the result of a single act but of
several acts of appellant and his cohorts. In the same vein,
appellant is also guilty of 4 counts of the crime of Attempted
Murder and not Multiple Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No.
7702-G.
● It bears stressing that the information in this case failed to
comply with the requirement in Section 13, Rule 110 of the
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
Amendment or Substitution of complaint or information
1. OCAMPO VS ABANDO ● Petitioner Ocampo alleges that Judge Abando did not comply with
I: [1] Were petitioners denied due process during preliminary the requirements of the Constitution in finding the existence of
investigation and in the issuance of the warrant of arrest? probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against
R: Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, allows Prosecutor Vivero petitioners.
to resolve the complaint based on the evidence before him if a respondent ● Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been
could not be subpoenaed. As long as efforts to reach a respondent were defined as "such facts and circumstances which would lead a
made, and he was given an opportunity to present countervailing reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
evidence, the preliminary investigation remains valid. has been committed by the person sought to be arrested." Allado
● In this case, the Resolution stated that efforts were undertaken to v. Diokno, G.R. No. 113630, May 5, 1994.Although the
serve subpoenas on the named respondents at their last known Constitution provides that probable cause shall be determined by
addresses. This is sufficient for due process. It was only because the judge after an examination under oath or an affirmation of the
a majority of them could no longer be found at their last known complainant and the witnesses, we have ruled that a hearing is
addresses that they were not served copies of the complaint and not necessary for the determination thereof. In fact, the judges
the attached documents or evidence. personal examination of the complainant and the witnesses is not
● Petitioner Ladlad, through his counsel, had every opportunity to mandatory and indispensable for determining the aptness of
secure copies of the complaint after his counsels formal entry of issuing a warrant of arrest.
appearance and, thereafter, to participate fully in the preliminary ● It is enough that the judge personally evaluates the prosecutors
investigation. Instead, he refused to participate. report and supporting documents showing the existence of
● Neither can we uphold petitioner Ocampos contention that he was probable cause for the indictment and, on the basis thereof, issue
denied the right to be heard. For him to claim that he was denied a warrant of arrest; or if, on the basis of his evaluation, he finds no
due process by not being furnished a copy of the Supplemental probable cause, to disregard the prosecutor's resolution and
Affidavit of Zacarias Piedad would imply that the entire case of the require the submission of additional affidavits of witnesses to aid
prosecution rested on the Supplemental Affidavit. The OSG has him in determining its existence. Delos Santos-Reyes v. Montesa,
asserted that the indictment of petitioner Ocampo was based on Jr. 317 Phil. 101
the collective affidavits of several other witnesses attesting to the ● The determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants
allegation that he was a member of the CPP/NPA/NDFP Central of arrest against petitioners is addressed to the sound discretion of
Committee, which had ordered the launch of Operation VD. Judge Abando as the trial judge.
○ Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that "no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except 2. FRONDA-BAGGAO VS PEOPLE
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the I: Whether the four Informations for illegal recruitment could be amended
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the and lumped into one Information for illegal recruitment in large scale?
complainant and the witnesses he may produce." YES.
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
R: Section 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information 3. MATALAM VS SB
may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at I: Whether or not petitioner was deprived of due process of law when the
any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended Information without conducting
the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and another or new preliminary investigation.
when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused R: The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment has
xxx been said to be whether a defense under the information as it originally
● Simply stated, before the accused enters his plea, a formal or stood would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any
substantial amendment of the complaint or information may be evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the
made without leave of court. After the entry of a plea, only a information in the one form as in the other. An amendment to an
formal amendment may be made but with leave of court and only information which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein
if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. After does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the
arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed except if the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held
same is beneficial to the accused. In this case, the Court that the to be one of form and not of substance.
petitioner had not yet entered her plea, and thus, the Informations ● In the case at bar, the amendment was indeed substantial. The
could still be amended. recital of facts constituting the offense charged was definitely
● A careful scrutiny of the above Rule shows that although it uses altered. In the original information, the prohibited act allegedly
the singular word complaint or information, it does not mean that committed by petitioner was the illegal and unjustifiable refusal to
two or more complaints or Informations cannot be amended into pay the monetary claims of the private complainants, while in the
only one Information. Otherwise, there can be an absurd situation amended information, it is the illegal dismissal from the service of
whereby two or more complaints or Informations could no longer the private complainants. However, it cannot be denied that the
be amended into one or more Informations. The Court cites Sec. alleged illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay monetary claims is
6, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that these related to, and arose from, the alleged illegal dismissal from the
Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their service of the private complainants.
objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of ● Moreover, while it is true that the charges in the original and
every action and proceeding. amended informations are related, this fact should not necessarily
● As to the violation of the petitioner’s rights, the Court held that deprive an accused to his right to a new preliminary investigation.
petitioner relies on Section 14 of the same Rule 110 which As above-stated, the rule is that a new preliminary investigation is
provides that after the plea and during the trial, a formal needed if there is a substantial amendment. The exception, i.e.,
amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can charge is related or included in the original information, should not
be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. As be applied automatically.
stated earlier, petitioner has not yet been arraigned. Hence, she
cannot invoke the said provision.
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
● While the amended Information was for Murder, a reading of
4. PACOY VS CAJIGAL the Information shows that the only change made was in the
I: WON the respondent judge committed an error in allowing the caption of the case; and in the opening paragraph or preamble of
(initial) change in the information – NO! the Information, with the crossing out of word Homicide and its
R: Petitioner confuses the procedure and effects of amendment or replacement by the word Murder. There was no change in the
substitution under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, to wit recital of facts constituting the offense charged or in the
SEC. 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information determination of the jurisdiction of the court. The averments in the
may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at amended Information for Murder are exactly the same as those
any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and already alleged in the original Information for Homicide, as there
during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of was not at all any change in the act imputed to petitioner,
court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the i.e., the killing of 2Lt. Escueta without any qualifying
rights of the accused. circumstance. Thus, we find that the amendment made in the
xxx caption and preamble from Homicide to Murder as purely formal.
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been ● Section 14, Rule 110 also provides that in allowing formal
made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the amendments in cases in which the accused has already
original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one pleaded, it is necessary that the amendments do not
charging the proper offense in accordance with Rule 119, Section prejudice the rights of the accused. The test of whether the
11, provided the accused would not be placed thereby in double rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a
jeopardy, and may also require the witnesses to give bail for their complaint or information is whether a defense under the
appearance at the trial. complaint or information, as it originally stood, would no longer
● with Section 19, Rule 119 of which provides: be available after the amendment is made; and when any
SEC. 19. When mistake has been made in charging the proper evidence the accused might have would be inapplicable to
offense. When it becomes manifest at any time before judgment the complaint or information.
that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense and
the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any 5. PEOPLE VS TUBONGBANUA
other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not be I: Whether or not the accused is guilty of murder
discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such case, Whether or not the CA erred in not allowing the amendments in the
the court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense information regarding the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and insult
and dismiss the original case upon the filing of the proper or disregard of the respect due to the rank, age or sex.
information. — R: We agree with the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals
● In the present case, the change of the offense charged from that appellant’s claim of self-defense is self-serving hence should not be
Homicide to Murder is merely a formal amendment and not a given credence. One who invokes self defense admits responsibility for the
substantial amendment or a substitution as defined in Teehankee. killing. Accordingly, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must
then prove the justifying circumstance. He must show by clear and
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense, or in defense of respect due to rank, age, or sex of Atty. Sua-Kho. The motive for
a relative or a stranger. With clear and convincing evidence, all the the murder was his grudge against the victim and not because she
following elements of self defense must be established: (1) unlawful was a lawyer and his employer.
aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person claiming self defense. Moreover, appellant’s act of
fleeing from the crime scene instead of reporting the incident to the police 6. SOBERANO VS PEOPLE
authorities is contrary to his proclaimed innocence but highly indicative of I: Whether or not the Court a quo erred in allowing the discharge of
guilt and negate his claim of self defense. accused Diloy and the Lopez brothers – NO
R: Section 14, Rule 110 (Prosecution of Offenses) of the Revised Rules of
● Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, provides that an Criminal Procedure, as amended, reads – "Section 14. Amendment or
amendment after the plea of the accused is permitted only as to substitution. – A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in
matters of form, provided leave of court is obtained and such substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters
amendment is not prejudicial to the rights of the accused. A his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only
substantial amendment is not permitted after the accused had be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing
already been arraigned. The Supreme Court held that the insertion prejudice to the rights of the accused.
of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and insult or ● "However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the
disregard of the respect due to rank, age, or sex of the victim is nature of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the
clearly a formal, not a substantial, amendment. These complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by the
amendments do not have the effect of charging another offense prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of
different or distinct from the charge of murder as contained in the court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and
original information. They relate only to the range of the penalty copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the
that the court might impose in the event of conviction. The offended party.
amendment did not adversely affect any substantial right of ● "If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been
appellant. Besides, appellant never objected to the presentation of made in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the
evidence to prove the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one
insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on charging the proper offense in accordance with Section 19, Rule
account of rank, age or sex. Without any objection by the defense, 119, provided the accused shall not be placed in double jeopardy.
the defect is deemed waived. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for their
● There is no dispute that Atty. Sua-Kho was killed in her home. appearance at the trial."
Appellant could have killed her elsewhere but he decided to ● Applying the import of the afore-quoted Section 14, Rule 110, it
commit the crime at her home; thus we appreciate the aggravating appears that the Amended Information sought to be admitted by
circumstance of dwelling. However, it was not convincingly shown the petitioner finds sufficient support therein, considering, firstly,
that appellant deliberately intended to offend or disregard the that there has been no arraignment yet. Secondly, when
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
respondent JUDGE RODOLFO A. PONFERRADA granted the of perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit
motion for reinvestigation in the Order dated July 04, 2001, there under Article 183 of the RPC is committed at the time the
was in effect a prior leave of court given to the State Prosecutors affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since it is
of the Department of Justice to conduct the same, substantially at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are
complying with such requirement under the second paragraph of executed. When the crime is committed through false
Section 14, Rule 110. After all, a leave of court is defined a testimony under oath in a proceeding that is neither criminal
"permission obtained from a court to take some action which, nor civil, venue is at the place where the testimony under
without such permission, would not be allowable: as, to sue a oath is given. If in lieu of or as supplement to the actual
receiver, to file an amended pleading, to plead several pleas." testimony made in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor
civil, a written sworn statement is submitted, venue may
either be at the place where the sworn statement is submitted
Venue of Criminal Actions or where the oath was taken as the taking of the oath and the
1. UNION BANK VS PEOPLE submission are both material ingredients of the crime
I: Whether or not the proper venue of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC committed. In all cases, determination of venue shall be
should be – Makati City, where the Certificate against Forum Shopping based on the acts alleged in the Information to be constitutive
was notarized, or Pasay City, where the Certification was presented to the of the crime committed.
trial court.
R: The SC denied the petition and held that the MeTC-Makati City is the
proper venue and the proper court to take cognizance of the perjury case
against the petitioners.
● The criminal charged was for the execution by Tomas of an
affidavit that contained a falsity. Article 183 of the RPC is indeed
the applicable provision; thus, jurisdiction and venue should be
determined on the basis of this article which penalizes one who
“makes an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent
person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law
so requires.” The constitutive act of the offense is the making of an
affidavit; thus, the criminal act is consummated when the
statement containing a falsity is subscribed and sworn before a
duly authorized person.
● Based on these considerations, SC held that its ruling in Sy Tiong
is more in accord with Article 183 of the RPC and Section 15(a),
Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. To
reiterate for the guidance of the Bar and the Bench, the crime
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTION ● The heirs moved to reconsider as they believe that Bernardo’s
Rule on implied institution of civil action with criminal action death extinguished her civil liability. They contended that any
1. BERNARDO VS PEOPLE civil liability should be settled in a separate civil case. But this was
Petitioner’s Contentions: denied and explained that Bernardo’s civil liability survived her
death as it is based on a contract.
● She was denied of due process as she was denied the full
opportunity to present her evidence and was thus deprived of the I: Whether or not the Bernardo’s civil liability may be enforced despite her
chance to prove her innocence of the crime charged. death – YES
● She avers that CA erred in affirming her criminal and civil liabilites Whether or not Bernardo was denied of due process -- NO
because the prosecution failed to prove her knowledge of Whether or not Bernardo sufficiently adduced evidence of payment – NO
insufficiency of funds. R: On Civil Liability
● There was no violation of BP 22 as the checks were presented An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to several
beyond the mandatory 90-day period. distinct civil liabilities on the part of the offender. If the conduct constitutes
● The subject checks were issued without consideration as she had a felony, the accusd may be held civilly liable under Art. 100 of the RPC.
already paid the loan Civil liabilty arises from the offense charged. It is not required that the
accused be convicted to be entitled to civil ilabilty based on delict. As long
OSG’s Arguments: as the facts constituting the offense charged are established by a
preponderance of evidence, civil liability may be awarded. Civil liability
● Bernardo was given the opportunity to present her defense. based on a delict is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
● The 90-day period provided in the law is not an element of the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it
offense. separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
● Bumanglag failed to substantiate Bernardo’s claim that she had Acts or omissions may also give rise to independent civil actions based
settled the obligation. on other sources of obligation (Art. 1157 of NCC) and those intentional
● BP 22 penalizes the act of making and issuing a worthless torts under Articles 32 and 34 of the NCC and for quasi-delicts under Art.
check, not the nonpayment of the obligation. 2176 of NCC. It is possible for one to be free from civil liability directly
arising from a violation of the penal law and still be civilly liable based on
NOTE: Subsequent Developments contract or by laws other than criminal law.
● Paz T. Bernardo had passed away BERNARDO’S CIVIL LIABILITY MAY BE ENFORCED IN THE
● Bernardo’s councel informed the Court of this matter and provided PRESENT CASE DESPITE HER DEATH.
the names of the heirs and their address. As a general rule, the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes
● The Court required Bernardo’s heirs to appear as substitutes for her criminal liability and the corresponding civil liability based solely on the
the deceased Bernardo in the present petition for purposes of offesne. Death absolves the accused from any earthly responsibility
Bernardo’s civil liability. arising from the offense. The independent civil liabilites survive the death
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
and an action therefore may be generally pursued but only filing a I: W/N the trial court may rule on the civil liability of complainant in a
separate civil action and subject to RULE 111, SECTION 1 of th Rules criminal case where the civil action was not reserved or filed separately –
of Court. This may be enforced against the estate of the accused. In BP NO.
22 cases, the criminal action shall be deemed to include the corresponding
civil actions. A single suit is filed and tried. This is to signifacntly lower the ● W/N a witness, who is not a party to the case, may be held liable
number of cases filed before the courts for collection based on dishonored for damages – NO.
chacks and is expected to expedite the disposition of cases. The death of
Bernardo did not automatically extinguish the civil action as the R: On the first issue: Section 1 of Rule 111, of the 2000 Rules on
independent civil liability based on a contract which was deemed instituted Criminal Procedure prohibits counterclaims in criminal cases. A court
in the criminal action for BP 22 which may be enforced against her estate trying a criminal case cannot award damages in favor of the accused.
in the present case. The task of the trial court is limited to determining the guilt of the accused
and if proper, to determine his civil liability. A criminal case is not the
On Due Process proper proceedings to determine the private complainant’s civil liability, if
Bernardo was not denied of due process as she was given several any. The counterclaim (and cross-claim or third-party complaint, if any)
opportunities to present her evidences which in all cases she failed to do should be set aside or refused cognizance without prejudice to their
so. Jurisprudence has established that Failure to appear with counsel of filing in separate proceedings at the proper time.
his choice at the hearing of the case, notwithstanding repeated
postponements and warnings that failure to do so appear would be In the present case, the civil liability of petitioners for swindling
deemed a waiver to present in his evidence and that the case woul be respondent spouses and for maliciously filing a baseless suit must be
deemed submitted for judgment upon the evidence presented by the litigated in a separate proceeding.
prosecution was sufficient legal justification of the trial court to proceed On the second issue:
and render judgment before it. The trial court also erred in holding prosecution witness petitioner
Potenciano, together with complainant petitioner Maccay, liable for
On Sufficent Evidence of Payment damages to respondent spouses. A judgment cannot bind persons who
Bernardo did not sufficiently adduce evidence of payment. One who are not parties to the action. A decision of a court cannot operate to
pleads payment carries the burden of proving it. The existence of the divest the rights of a person who is not a party to the case. The records
obligation is sufficiently proven by the promissory note and the checks clearly show that petitioner Potenciano is not a party to this case. The
submitted in evidence. This was confirmed during Bernardo’s testimony. Information filed by the prosecutor had only petitioner Maccay as its
However, Bernardo’s claim of payment was nothing more than an complainant. The Verification attached to the Information had only
allegation unsupported by proof. petitioner Maccay signing as complainant. Nothing in the records shows
that petitioner Potenciano played a role other than being a witness for the
2. MACCAY VS SPS NOBELA prosecution. To rule otherwise would violate petitioner Potenciano’s
constitutional right to due process.
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
When Civil action may process independently Criminal Case No. 275381 and in Civil Case No. 915-00, that is,
1. HEIRS OF SIMON VS CHAN Chan and Simon, are the same. Secondly, the information in
I: Whether or not the institution of a separate civil action based on BP Blg Criminal Case No. 275381 and the complaint in Civil Case No.
22 is proper. 915-00 both alleged that Simon had issued Landbank Check No.
R: No. There is no independent civil action to recover the civil liability 0007280 worth ₱336,000.00 payable to “cash,” thereby indicating
arising from the issuance of an unfunded check prohibited and punished that the rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for, as well as the
under BP Blg 22. Section 1 (b) Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides facts upon which the reliefs sought were founded, were identical in
that the criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be all respects. And, thirdly, any judgment rendered in one case
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file would necessarily bar the other by res judicata; otherwise, Chan
such civil action separately shall be allowed. would be recovering twice upon the same claim.
● Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof
has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal 2. ACE HAULERS VS CA
action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the I: Whether or not in an action for damages arising from a vehicular
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accident plaintiff may recover damages against the employer of the
accordance with section 2 of the Rule governing consolidation of accused driver both in the criminal case (delict) and the civil case for
the civil and criminal actions. damages based on quasi delict. - NO
NOTES: R: In Padua v. Robles, we held that "Civil liability coexists with criminal
Litis Pendentia responsibility. In negligence cases, the offended party (or his heirs) has
Did the pendency of the civil action in the MeTC in Manila (as the civil the option between an action for enforcement of civil liability based on
aspect in Criminal Case No. 275381) bar the filing of Civil Case No. culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action
915-00 in the MeTC in Pasay City on the ground of litis pendentia? for recovery of damages based on culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of
● For litis pendentia to be successfully invoked as a bar to an action, the Civil Code. x x x Article 2177 of the Civil Code, however, precludes
the concurrence of the following requisites is necessary, namely: recovery of damages twice for the same negligent act or omission."
(a) there must be identity of parties or at least such as represent ● Consequently, a separate civil action for damages lies against the
the same interest in both actions; (b) there must be identity of offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally
rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the
the same facts; and, (c) the identity in the two cases should be offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also
such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be
regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two,
respect of the other. Absent the first two requisites, the possibility assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.
of the existence of the third becomes nil.
● A perusal of Civil Case No. 01-0033 and Criminal Case No.
275381 ineluctably shows that all the elements of litis pendentia
are attendant. First of all, the parties in the civil action involved in
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
3. CARANDANG VS SANTIAGO Parallel Case: (Bixby vs Sioux City) - In that case, the appellant sought to
I: Whether the term "physical injuries" used in Article 33 means any take his case from the scope of the statute by pointing out that inasmuch
physical injury or bodily injury, whether inflicted with intent to kill or not. - as notice is required where the cause of action is founded on injury to the
YES person, it has no application when the damages sought are for the death
R: In the case at bar, the accused was charged with and convicted of the of the person. The court ruled that a claim to recover for death resulting
crime of frustrated homicide, and while it was found in the criminal case from personal injury is as certainly "founded on injury to the person" as
that a wound was inflicted by the defendant on the body of the petitioner would be a claim to recover damages for a non-fatal injury resulting in a
herein Cesar Carandang, which wound is bodily injury, the crime crippled body.
committed is not physical injuries but frustrated homicide, for the reason Notes
that the infliction of the wound is attended by the intent to kill.
Article 33: In cases of defamation, fraud and physical injuries, a civil
● The Article in question uses the words "defamation", "fraud" and
action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action,
"physical injuries." Defamation and fraud are used in their ordinary
may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed
sense because there are no specific provisions in the Revised
independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
Penal Code using these terms as means of offenses defined
preponderance of evidence.
therein, so that these two terms defamation and fraud must have
been used not to impart to them any technical meaning in the laws
of the Philippines, but in their generic sense.
● With this apparent circumstance in mind, it is evident that the term
"physical injuries" could not have been used in its specific sense
as a crime defined in the Revised Penal Code, for it is difficult to
believe that the Code Commission would have used terms in the
same article — some in their general and another in its technical
sense. In other words, the term "physical injuries" should be
understood to mean bodily injury, not the crime of physical
injuries, because the terms used with the latter are general
terms. In any case the Code Commission recommended that the
civil for assault and battery in American Law, and this
recommendation must have been accepted by the Legislature
when it approved the article intact as recommended. If the intent
has been to establish a civil action for the bodily harm received by
the complainant similar to the civil action for assault and battery,
as the Code Commission states, the civil action should lie whether
the offense committed is that of physical injuries, or frustrated
homicide, or attempted homicide, or even death.
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
Civil Idemnity ● Based on the violation of petitioners’ right to speedy disposition of
1. PEOPLE VS OANDANSAN cases as herein discussed, the present case stands to be
R: In a more recent case of People vs. Oandasa, the Supreme Court, in its dismissed even before either the prosecution or the defense has
decision narrated the history of civil indemnity in our jurisdiction. The case been given the chance to present any evidence. Thus, the Court is
involves murder and frustrated murder and but in the complaint, moral unable to make a definite pronouncement as to whether
damages was not among those alleged or prayed for. The Supreme Court petitioners indeed committed the acts or omissions from which any
on appeal upheld the conviction of the accused and included the award of civil liability on their part might arise as prescribed under Section
moral damages. It said: “Similarly, moral damages are allowed even 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, absent this
without allegation and proof, it being a certainty that the victims’ heirs were pronouncement, the Province is not precluded from instituting a
entitled thereto as a matter of law.” (People vs. Oandasan, G.R. No. subsequent civil case based on the delict if only to recover the
194605, June 14, 2016). Under ordinary circumstances, the determination amount of P20,000,000.00 in public funds attributable to
of damages should have been through presentation of evidence and this petitioners’ alleged malfeasance.
can only be done at the trial court. The Supreme Court not being a trial
court, would have remanded the case to the trial court for the reception of Effect of death of accused or convict on civil action
evidence but since according to the SC itself, the heirs of the victims are 1. PEOPLE VS BUNAY
entitled to moral damages as a matter of law. I: WON death of accused totally extinguished his criminal liab pending his
appeal.
When separate civil action is suspended R: ● The death of the accused likewise extinguished the civil liability that
1. CONSUELLA VS SB was based exclusively on the crime for which the accused was convicted
I: Whether the petitioners are free from any civil liability? - NO (i.e., ex delicto), because no final judgment of conviction was yet rendered
R: While the foregoing pronouncement should, as matter of course, result by the time of his death. (People vs. Bunay, G.R. No. 171268,, September
in the acquittal of the petitioners, it does not necessarily follow that 14, 2010)
petitioners are entirely exculpated from any civil liability, assuming that the ● Such extinction is based on Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code,
same is proven in a subsequent case which the Province may opt to which pertinently provides: Article 89. How criminal liability is
pursue. totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
● The Rules provide: "The extinction of the penal action does not 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to
carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the
from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
civil might arise did not exist. In other cases, the person entitled to Xxxx The death of the accused likewise extinguished the civil liability that
the civil action may institute it in the jurisdiction and in the manner was based exclusively on the crime for which the accused was convicted
provided by law against the person who may be liable for (i.e., ex delicto), because no final judgment of conviction was yet rendered
restitution of the thing and reparation or indemnity for the damage by the time of his death. Only civil liability predicated on a source of
suffered." obligation other than the delict survived the death of the accused, which
the offended party can recover by means of a separate civil action.
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible
2. PEOPLE VS LAYAG privation of right by prescription.[2]
R: In People v. Layag,[1] the Supreme Court thoroughly explained the ● Thus, upon accused-appellant's death pending appeal of his
effects of the death of an accused pending appeal on his liabilities, as conviction, the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is
follows: no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction instituted therein for the recovery of the civil liability ex delicto is
extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as the civil liability, based ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal action.
solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the However, it is well to clarity that accused-appellant's civil liability in
death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal connection with his acts against the victim, AAA, may be based on
liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based sources other than delicts; in which case, AAA may file a separate
solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in civil action against the estate of accused-appellant, as may be
senso strictiore." warranted by law and procedural rules.[3]
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the
death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source
of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code Prejudicial Question
enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil 1. REYES VS ROSSI
liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: a) Law I: Whether or not the pendency of civil action for rescission of contract
b) Contracts c) Quasi-contracts d) x x x e) Quasi-delicts. posed a prejudicial question as to the criminal proceeding on BP 22?
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, R: NO. The court ruled that the pendency of the civil action for rescission
an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of of contract is not a prejudicial question as to the crime of B.P. 22. Hence,
filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the said civil action and criminal proceeding can proceed independently at
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate the same time.
civil action may be enforced either against the ● To determine the existence of a prejudicial question, the court
executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on made reference to the elements of the crime B.P. 22 The violation
the source of obligation upon which the same is based as of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 requires the concurrence of the
explained above. following elements, namely:
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his 1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for
right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases account or for value;
where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its 2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of
extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment;
liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal and
case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, 3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to ● A prejudicial question generally comes into play in a
stop payment. situation where a civil action and a criminal action are both
The issue in the criminal actions upon the violations of Batas pending, and there exists in the former an issue that must
Pambansa Blg. 22 is, therefore, whether or not Reyes issued the first be determined before the latter may proceed,
dishonoured checks knowing them to be without funds upon because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is
presentment. resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt
● On the other hand, the issue in the civil action for or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. The
rescission is whether or not the breach in the fulfilment of rationale for the suspension on the ground of a prejudicial
Advanced Foundation’s obligation warranted the question is to avoid conflicting decisions. Section 7, Rule
rescission of the conditional sale. If, after trial on the 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
merits in the civil action, Advanced Foundation would be Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. –
found to have committed material breach as to warrant the ● The elements of a prejudicial question are: a) the
rescission of the contract, such result would not previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar
necessarily mean that Reyes would be absolved of the or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
criminal responsibility for issuing the dishonored checks criminal action, and b) the resolution of such issue
because, as the aforementioned elements show, he determines whether or not the criminal action may
already committed the violations upon the dishonor of the proceed. In Sabandal v. Tongco, the concept of prejudicial
checks that he had issued at a time when the conditional question is explained in this wise: For a civil action to be
sale was still fully binding upon the parties. considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the
● His obligation to fund the checks or to make arrangements suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final
for them with the drawee bank should not be tied up to the resolution of the civil, the following requisites must be
future event of extinguishment of the obligation under the present: 1) the civil case involves facts intimately related
contract of sale through rescission. Indeed, under Batas to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be
Pambansa Blg. 22, the mere issuance of a worthless based; 2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in
check was already the offense in itself. Under such the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused
circumstances, the criminal proceedings for the violation would necessarily be determined; and 3) jurisdiction to try
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 could proceed despite the said question must be lodged in another tribunal.
pendency of the civil action for rescission of the
conditional sale. 2. MONTANEZ VS CIPRIANO
● Wherefore, since the innocence or guiltiness of Reyes is I: Whether or not petitioner (private complaint) is the proper person to file a
not determinative or does not depend on the result of the petition assailing the decision of the RTC. - NO.
civil action, then such civil action cannot posed as R: Preliminarily, we note that the instant petition assailing the RTC's
prejudicial question, thus cannot suspend the criminal dismissal of the Information for bigamy was filed by private complainant
proceeding on the crime of B.P. 22.
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
and not by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which should Prejudicial question is that which arises in a case, the resolution of which
represent the government in all judicial proceedings filed before us. is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in the criminal case, and the
In Antone v. Beronilla, the offended party (private complainant) questioned cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is determinative of the
before the Court of Appeals (CA) the RTC's dismissal of the Information criminal case, but the jurisdiction to try and resolve it is lodged in another
for bigamy filed against her husband, and the CA dismissed the petition on court or tribunal. It is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime
the ground, among others, that the petition should have been filed in but is so intimately connected with the crime that it determines the guilt or
behalf of the People of the Philippines by the OSG, being its statutory innocence of the accused. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial
counsel in all appealed criminal cases. In a petition filed with us, we said question is to avoid conflicting decisions.
that we had given due course to a number of actions even when the ● The concept of a prejudicial question involves a civil action and a
respective interests of the government were not properly represented by criminal case. Yet, contrary to SMP’s submission that there could
the OSG and said: be no prejudicial question to speak of because no civil action
In Labaro v. Panay, this Court dealt with a similar defect in the where the prejudicial question arose was pending, the action for
following manner: specific performance in the HLURB raises a prejudicial question
It must, however, be stressed that if the public prosecution is that sufficed to suspend the proceedings determining the charge
aggrieved by any order ruling of the trial judge in a criminal for the criminal violation of PD No. 957. This is true simply
case, the OSG, and not the prosecutor, must be the one to because the action for specific performance was an action civil in
question the order or ruling before us. x x x Nevertheless, since nature but could not be instituted elsewhere except in the HLURB,
the challenged order affects the interest of the State or the whose jurisdiction over the action was exclusive and original. The
plaintiff People of the Philippines, we opted not to dismiss the determination of whether the proceedings ought to be suspended
petition on this technical ground. Instead, we required the OSG because of a prejudicial question rested on whether the facts and
to comment on the petition, as we had done before in some cases. issues raised in the pleadings in the specific performance case
In light of its Comment, we rule that the OSG has ratified and were so related with the issues raised in the criminal complaint for
adopted as its own the instant petition for the People of the the violation of PD No. 957, such that the resolution of the issues
Philippines. in the former would be determinative of the question of guilt in the
criminal case.
3. SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES VS PEREZ ● Here, the action for specific performance in the HLURB would
I: Whether the HLURB administrative case for specific performance could determine whether or not SMP was legally entitled to demand the
be a reason to suspend the proceedings on the criminal complaint for the delivery of the remaining 20 TCTs, while the criminal action would
violation of PD No. 957 on the ground of a prejudicial question. decide whether or not BF Homes’ directors and officers were
R: YES, an action for specific performance, even if pending in the HLURB, criminally liable for withholding the 20 TCTs. The resolution of the
an administrative agency, raises a prejudicial question that must first be former (admin case) must obviously precede that of the latter, for
determined before the criminal case for violation of Sec. 25 of PD No. 957 should the HLURB hold SMP to be not entitled to the delivery of
could be resolved. the 20 TCTs because Atty. Orendain did not have the authority to
represent BF Homes in the sale due to his receivership having
ATTY. CHESKA SENGA
been terminated by the SEC, the basis for the criminal liability for
the violation of Sec. 25 of PD No. 957 would evaporate, thereby
negating the need to proceed with the criminal case. Hence, the
Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
upholding the dismissal of SMP’s criminal complaint for violation of
PD No. 957 for lack of probable cause and for reason of a
prejudicial question
Another contention of SMP:

SMP further submits that respondents could not validly raise the prejudicial
question as a reason to suspend the criminal proceedings because
respondents had not themselves initiated either the action for specific
performance or the criminal action. It contends that the defense of a
prejudicial question arising from the filing of a related case could only be
raised by the party who filed or initiated said related case. The submission
is unfounded. The rule on prejudicial question makes no distinction as to
who is allowed to raise the defense. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos
distinguere debemos. When the law makes no distinction, we ought not to
distinguish.

Crmpro Midterms Exam Mod 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crmpro Midterms Exam Mod 12

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crmpro Midterms Exam Mod 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMPRO MIDTERMS CASES

ATTY. CHESKA SENGA

2. ORBE VS MIARAL 3. LAUDE VS GINEZ-JABALDE

Another contention of SMP:

You might also like